Simple argument: If it's a crime to have a gun, only criminals will have guns.

Detailed argument:

The biggest argument people have is fewer guns, fewer gun crimes. The problem is people ignore the full trend. When guns are unavailable, other weapons are used.
The states with the least restrictive gun laws have the lowest violent crime rates.
There are multiple examples of where violent crime sky rocketed when more restrictions were put on guns. Not just in the US either. Better yet, there's multiple examples of when gun restrictions were lifted, violent crime dropped.

Still need more? In 2004, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences released its evaluation from a review of 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some original empirical research. It failed to identify any gun control that had reduced violent crime, suicide, or gun accidents. It's worth noting that the review panel, which was set up during the Clinton
Administration, was composed almost entirely of scholars who, to the extent
their views were publicly known before their appointments, favored gun control.

The same conclusion was reached in 2003 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control’s review of then-extant studies.
(quoted from links below)

How about this:

In Europe, Norway has both the highest rate of gun ownership and the lowest homicide rate.

Russia managed to greatly eliminate gun ownership, yet it's homicide rate is 4 times that of the U.S. and 20 times that of Norway.

Many European nations with high gun ownership have low homicide, including Norway, Finland, France, and Germany

Handguns are completely banned in Luxembourg, and gun ownership of any kind is minimal. They have a homicide rate 9 times that of Germany.

Keep in mind, this is homicide overall, not homicide by gun.
But does the weapon matter, or the crime itself?

Harvard did an exhaustive study on gun ownership, gun control laws, and violent crime rates in America and Europe.

You miss the point of gun control. Gun control does not aim to reduce violent crime. It aims to decrease the lethality of violent crime. Objectively, this works. England has a far higher violent crime rate compared to the US, yet a far lower murder rate. Killing someone with a gun is incredibly easy. It can be done quickly, repeatedly, and at a distance. You cannot outrun a bullet.

You can however, outrun a person brandishing a knife. And even if they do catch you, knife wounds have a pleasant tendency of missing vital organs, and so stabbings tend not to be as deadly as shootings.

Obviously, this is an invitation to a debate. But I feel morally compelled to warn you, debating with me involves responses usually upwards of 15,000 words from both of us. If you decline, it is without shame, and I completely understand.

it is estimated there are over 85 million gun owners could be much higher
it is estimated there are over 300 million guns
if a different gun was used for every gun death in any given year that still means that less than 0.1% of guns are used for crimes and that the same can be said about gun owners
any violent death is a terrible thing but the gun is not doing the crime people are
more people are killed with bare hands than guns
more people are killed with knives than guns
more people are killed with other things like rocks or bats than guns
it seems that over the last 20 years people have started to care less about other people
people are less afraid of going to jail if they go at all
the big "lets ban guns" thing really started when the mass killings started for some reason blaming the gun not the person, why don't they blame the person part of my guess is that during the same time frame people started making excesses for criminals - it's not his fault he didn't have a dad, or he was on drugs, or the latest one his family is so rich he doesn't know any better
and by wanting to ban guns they are still blaming the gun and all other gun owners rather than the person
trying to take guns away from law abiding people stops them from being able to protect themselves or their family
it does not take guns away from criminals
it does not give you a chance against 2 or more criminals
it just makes you a future victim
and what about all your other rights if they take away your right to have a gun then there is nothing to stop them from taking all the other rights away history has proved that

"any violent death is a terrible thing but the gun is not doing the crime people are"

Exactly. But people are given a handsome and 'easy' tool to kill.

"'the big "lets ban guns" thing really started when the mass killings started for some reason blaming the gun not the person, why don't they blame the person part of my guess is that during the same time frame people started making excesses for criminals - it's not his fault he didn't have a dad, or he was on drugs, or the latest one his family is so rich he doesn't know any better"

Of course, the people themselves have some problems, but as I said above, they get an easy tool to kill, and it's quite hard to identify who shot someone with it, unlike a knife or else of that kind.

"it does not take guns away from criminals."

That's true - but it's going to get a lot harder to get weapons, and if a policeman finds a gun in someone's house, he's already done a 'crime', and it's easier to investigate him further. If the victim got shot and he's already one of the suspicous people, it's easier to tell that it was him.

"it just makes you a future victim"

Or it makes you a future murderer... Who knows...
But, you know? In country's where guns were illegal since quite some time, most crimes are committed without guns, and even if someone has a gun, most of the time they either don't know how to shoot or just can't shoot because of their mentality. Isn't that better than teaching a kid how to shoot with it? And - after all - if someone has a gun pointed at you, you can't get your own anyways because he'd shoot you.

"and what about all your other rights if they take away your right to have a gun then there is nothing to stop them from taking all the other rights away history has proved that"

Wait... You are telling me that when citizens don't have a gun anymore the government will put all your other rights away from you? Wow, that's just pathetic.

"it does not give you a chance against 2 or more criminals."

Nope, it's the opposite: A gun won't give you a chance against 2 or more criminals, even if they don't have a gun.

You can't solve problems with guns, history's proven that.

You can't solve the 'criminals with gun' problem if you legalize them.

The handling of guns is no joke; if it is misused it can be fatal not only to the victim but also to the user itself. It can have a massive psychological effect. Guns have no positive effect; all that it causes is chaos and death. People can argue that guns are useful if they are used for self defence however statistics beg to differ.

Roughly 16,272 murders were committed in the United States during 2008. Of these, about 10,886 or 67% were committed with firearms. This is a huge statistic; more than half murders that have been committed were due to firearms. However this can be stopped if there is a ban on the utilization of firearms. We can cut down the amount deaths. It has been proven from time and time again those countries with strict gun laws have low rates of violent crimes.

People who own guns for protection often kill their own friends and family by accident. Oscar Pistorius is a Paralympics runner from South Africa. It was the middle of the night when it happened. Oscar Pistorius was alone at home with his girlfriend. Pistorius thought an intruder had entered his house and not having legs to run he felt vulnerable. He took out his 9mm handgun and shot the intruder. He immediately got up and put on his fake legs to check out who the intruder was. When he saw the intruder, it turned out to actually be his girlfriend. He had accidentally killed her all because of a gun. This is another reason why the ownership of guns should be banned. An innocent woman was killed for no reason, it was an accident. An innocent woman would have been able to live if Pistorius didn’t own a gun. Not only did he kill someone he loved but just imagine the psychological effect on him.

I find it an interesting statement that "He had accidentally killed her all because of a gun." True, the gun was used and a firearm doesn't give much leeway for errors as a stun gun or baseball bat, the victim will be at least severely injured even if your aim is off. I dispute that the girlfriend was killed because of the gun. She was killed because of an incapacity to exercise judgement brought on by his fear and lack of responsible gun handling protocol. The 9mm handgun is only an object, regardless of what it is used for by an individual. He clearly shirked the responsibility that comes with the right in failing to identify his target before firing. Had he simply called out and waited for a response, with trigger finger indexed off the trigger and muzzle pointed away in a safe direction until he POSITIVELY identified a threat, then they may have had an awkward moment, but no one would have been harmed. In my opinion, it is always the actions of the human involved that we should attach the incident to, not the inanimate object.

I have been around firearms since I was 12 years old, in my control, due to the fact that I have always enjoyed hunting, target shooting and believe I am valuable enough to defend my life and the lives of family and friends. I am currently 55 years old and have never had any accident that involved a fired round. I have pinched my finger a couple of times disassembling a gun to clean it. I believe in the simple four rules of gun safety, I believe they should be taught to every gun owner and, in fact, human being who is willing to know, at an early age. My grandfather was a Marine Corps Drill Instructor and taught marksmanship to many recruits, so I was well schooled in safety and marksmanship. I have saved myself from criminal action (armed criminal action mind you) no less than 5 times with a firearm. In no case has anyone actually been shot or a round fired. Criminals that would harm you while you are unarmed stop suddenly and leave the area when they are presented with a suddenly armed victim in my experience. They are cowards.

Four Simple Rules:
1. All guns are *ALWAYS* loaded. Treating firearms this way will guarantee you never have to say "I thought it was empty!".
2. Never point the muzzle at anything you don't intend to destroy or at least can't afford to lose, including yourself.
3. Keep your trigger finger well off the trigger unless you are aiming it at a target you *INTEND* to destroy. It's called indexing and everyone should learn this from the start with any type of firearm.
4. Always triple check any target and it's background before you pull the trigger, bullets will *NOT* come back after you do no matter how much you might want them to.

I believe safety and practice is key. I come from a long line of law enforcement, one kind or the other, and was raised with guns and how to handle them by the age of seven. Every family household had loaded weapons but we were taught gun safety first and never once had an incident, I know that's because we grew up with care and respect for their use. Besides that, they're really fun to practice target shooting!

We introduced my son to guns when he was 9. He went through gun safety courses and we practice often with a variety of guns, knives, and bow hunting. He loves it! I've gotten a lot of disapproval from friends when they hear about our weapons practice or see pictures of my son, Ben, shooting his AK-47, Glock 21, Springfield XD, M16, FNP-45, SCAR 17S (a semiautomatic version imported from Belgium), or the 1911 Walther PPK he got on his 11th birthday from his grandfather. I simply explain to them that learning gun safety use prevents more incidents from happening because they know how to use and care for them. Research has shown that accidents happen with kids that do not know about gun safety, than kids that do. It only makes sense.

First I would like to say that there is absolutely ZERO correlation between gun laws and gun deaths. There are many nations in Latin America and Africa that have much stricter guns laws but they have a much higher percentage of gun deaths also, Brazil and Mexico to name 2. On the flip side there are nations such as Switzerland who have a militia that keeps their rifles in their homes and their gun deaths are miniscule. Any conclusions made about gun deaths from gun laws is strictly false.

Defensive gun use is much higher and more important than you give it credit for. Just look at this article on Wikipedia 'en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_defensive_gun_use_incidents' The low estimates are around 50,000 gun defenses every year, which far exceeds gun related deaths. The high estimates are over 1 million.

The example of Pistorius is a great example of a stupid gun owner putting a black mark on the US gun system that has served us very well. When you say that he accidentally killed her, all because of a gun, that is no correlation. The gun didn't whisper to him in his sleep, Pistorius knowingly fired in to an unknown and unsafe area and has nothing to blame for his actions but himself.

"There is absolutely ZERO correlation between gun laws and gun deaths" - I disagree. As far as I know every accident involving kids occurred because their parents had access to guns. With stricter gun laws those parents would probably not have guns ergo their kids would probably not have an accident.

Brazil and Mexico - these are the countries with very high to extreme high crime rate. In my opinion they are irrelevant. Look at European countries where gun laws are stricter than in the US (e.g. UK) - much less accidents involving kids, much less school shootings etc. Only small groups of people have access to guns. And most of those people are properly educated how to handle a gun.

Link is invalid: "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name".

"Pistorius knowingly fired in to an unknown and unsafe area and has nothing to blame for his actions but himself" - Yes, he is the only one to blame, but without a gun he could not shoot.

reply

subscribe

share/challenge

flag

load further replies (4)

Load more (1)in reply toJohnQ's post (First I would like to say that there is absolutely ZERO correlation between gun laws and gun deaths. There are many nations in Latin America and Africa that have much stricter guns laws but they have...)

I should be "allowed" to own a gun as much as I am "allowed" free speech! Rights are not granted by government but are inherently ours and so far as I am concerned the repeal of which is not a debatable topic! Government does not give us freedom and is historically more responsible for taking away liberty than its is granting more of them. And that is why (and who) we need our guns to ultimately protect us from. Every day self-defense is just the more likely reason but there is also the "what if...?" factor.

This is ridiculous. It is your 2nd amendment right in the constitution to own a gun to not only protect from home invaders, but from the GOVERNMENT. Look at the TSA, NSA,, NDAA, AP scandal, etc. and you'll learn about the liberties they are already taking away. If a police state were to arise, we would be defenseless without guns. If you got rid of the second amendment, only criminals would have guns as there are millions in circulation. As for the idiots who accidentally shoot family members or themselves, well that's just survival of the fittest. And as for the mass shooters, Reagan got rid of mental institutions, so now mentally ill people don't have anywhere to go, and end up going crazy. The majority of gun related deaths are from pistols anyway...

Many individuals in the USA do not understand the Prime Reason for our Constitution. Even Supreme Court Justices have said there is no way to know what the "original intent" was. Should they be the judge of Anything if they don't understand that?
Our Founders just fought a war over tyranny. Their intention was to provide essential Government while preventing tyranny. Their discussions were varied. They were imperfect, but quite well educated and understood the lessons of past failed Governments. They worked together to determine the best way to avoid creating a new form of tyranny. They knew that Power Corrupts so they set out to avoid any possibility of creating excessive power in the hands of too few. Spreading Power thinly was their method of of avoiding corruption and tyranny. A wise choice indeed.
So they divided Government into branches. They Limited the Federal government. They gave More power to the individual States. Then they Guaranteed Rights to Individual Citizens.
Any law confiscates individual Rights and Power and shifts them to the Federal Government is likely unconstitutional by its very nature.
The Right to Bear Arms is essential since it grants the Right and Responsibility to every Responsible citizen to Defend the Constitution from all enemies both foreign and Domestic.
If our Founders made any mistake in their basic presentation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, it was the Failure to indicate the obvious fact that Liberty can nor survive if citizens fail to use their Rights and Liberty in a Responsible manner. Problems and injustices are created when we reward those who act irresponsibly by not holding them Liable for any harm they create and then Punish the Responsible citizens by forcing them to pay to correct the damages caused by the irresponsible.
What America suffers from the Most is a Failure of the Justice System.
America can not survive if we continue to reward irresponsible behavior while unjustly penalizing the responsible citizen and then make laws, regulations, and build bureaucracies to enforce more tyrannical (Liberty Limiting) policies.
An all American path to pursue would be to assure weapons stay out of the hands of those who have demonstrated an inability to act responsibly while placing no restrictions on ownership by those who have shown they use their Rights in a wise manner.

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception.

Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because we're afraid, but because it enables us to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with us through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.

I think a large number of people against firearms fail to understand history. Our forefathers understood the meaning of Tyranny. They were being oppressed by a government, and left with little recourse other than to revolt. This situation has repeated itself many times throughout history and across the globe, so this was hardly the first time the need existed, nor will it be the last.

The purpose of the second amendment is to ensure that should we have the need to revolt against a tyrannical government at any point during the future, we will have the means to do so. Owning firearms isn't about the ability to go out and hunt. It isn't about simply having the freedom to own firearms. If you read the statements by the founders of this nation, it is very clear that the second amendment is about having the tools necessary to ensure the safety of yourself, and your loved ones.

It is folly to think that anyone else is responsible for your safety. While there may be those that take up that responsibility, there are far less of these sorts of people than there are citizens. It is physically impossible to protect everyone simultaneously. Disarmament is not only shirking your responsibility to yourself and your loved ones, but it enables the very sort of thing we fought against when founding this nation.

It is critical that the right to defend oneself not be infringed, as a tyrannical government will not defend you, but rather will be on the offensive.

While safety is a huge concern and should not be ignored, all too often we forget our own history. We can't forget where we came from, nor a global cycle of tyrants rising and terrorizing their own citizens. History repeats itself, and those who fail to recognize this fact are doomed to repeat it.

Citizens should be allowed to carry conciled firearms! yes,there has been attack but really , if they had guns they could fire back! Schools too should have like armed teachers and students should know the fighting technices!

Yes, because the alternative is good people can just become targets to the evil in the world. All Americans know freedom and the responsibilities that freedom comes with. I can own guns but you can be assured that the law enforcement folks will always have more power than I could imagine. The time will come in our lives when the powers to be can not respond to all the evil and it comes to us to defend justice. We can defend it with many methods other than guns. The power is in the mind of the evil doers careful they could shoot back and maybe kill our efforts to do evil. Maybe I should stop what it is that could get me in harms way. If all of us owning guns is a deterrent, good. Liberal thinking is not bad it just lacks the ability to let good people protect their freedoms.

Got my first BB gun at 6, summer between first and second grade. Still remember all the rules my daddy taught me. Somehow managed to raise 3 children to adults with 5 guns in the house without any of them ever getting shot. Maybe my children and I just got lucky, maybe my guns were always unloaded and locked up except when we were att he range or in the field using them.

NO reason honest, law-abiding responsible adults should be denied the right to own firearms just because of your irrational fear.

Sure. However, there are risks. There is a greater probability of a gun accident in the home, then saving oneself from a home invasion.
Also, the State has a right to limit what type of weapons can be kept for self defense.
States can limit and regulate highly dangerous and exotic weapons. For example, no one really needs a .50 caliber sniper rifle for home defense. It will punch through several walls! But collectors and enthusiasts should be allowed to obtain them under special conditions.

No one needs a high performance Porsche to drive our roads, but they can own one. That is mere transportation and will not likely ever save many lives due to the speed it can move on roads. Firearms, even big, black scary ones, can defend someone in some circumstance regardless of some odd opinion that 'it's too powerful to ever be useful'. The Supreme Court has written opinions that see the right for citizens to own guns to be connected to "...weapons of military utility...". No one that has seen a .50 caliber rifle be used at long range for precision shooting can question it's military utility. Besides, at the price they are, as large as they are and as noticeable when fired as they are, fear a criminal with a .22 pistol, not an enthusiast with a Barrett.

It is true, that a .50 caliber is great at long range, but even the military wouldn't use one in a house fight. Take a look out of your window, and imagine all of your neighbors owning such a weapon. How safe would that make you feel?
But again, the State can limit and control what weapons you buy, and can also limit who cannot buy any at all. Such as age limits, felons, and the mentally ill.

Take a look out of your window, and imagine all of your neighbors owning such a weapon. How safe would that make you feel?

How safe would you feel if all your neighbors owned a horribly-difficult-to-drive Porsche like the one that killed Paul Walker? But more importantly, how would all your neighbors afford such cars? Do you live among millionaires?

.50-cal rifles are ridiculously expensive, not only to own, but to shoot. Each round costs at least $5 (at least that's what I was told about 7 years ago, the price is probably higher now). There's a reason not many people own them, just like not many people own high-end Porsches, Bentleys, or Rolls-Royces. All this hysteria about 50-cal rifles is just that: hysteria. When was the last time one was used in a crime? Never? Criminals can't afford this kind of equipment, and don't bother when much cheaper stuff is available.

This is why gun owners and enthusiasts never take the liberal anti-gun people seriously: they don't know what they're talking about, and they're always demonizing and concentrating on things that don't matter, such as 50-cal rifles, pistol grips, and bayonet mounts. When was the last time someone was murdered by a bayonet anyway? So why are the liberals always screaming about them?

Who says I'm anti-gun or screaming? I never owned a gun, but my sons do, and I go to the range with them. One even has a AR-15.
I don't believe criminals would use a .50 cal, nor do I worry about serious gun collectors who can afford the rifle and shells.
I worry about the idiot next door who after a few beers, decides to get rid of that pesky squirrel.
But the point still remains, the State can regulate certain weapons be it .50 cal, bayonet, or hand grenade.

No one needs a Porsche, but before you can drive one (or any car) you have to take a written test, complete 6 hours of supervised training (in my state), 6 months of supervised driving under a learner's permit, then a graduated license where you are not allowed to have more than one non-family member passenger in your car for the first year and only drive during certain hours. Further, the car you drive--Porsche or otherwise--has to be registered in a government database and insured both for yourself and against third-party liability.

Why do we not apply these same credentials to weapons whose sole purpose is to destroy?

I don't understand this question as gun ownership is a guaranteed right for citizens in the United States of America, and by the law as stated in the Constitution of said United States, they (the citizens) implicitly and explicitly have the right of gun ownership.

The grey area of "'who has the right of gun ownership, and how many, and what they look like and..." is a matter of deliberate government misinterpretation designed to limit the ability of the American people to own guns, and for the government to misstate what said ownership is for, as both reasons are plainly stated in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

allowed....
allowed by whom? Our betters? Do you honestly think that Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid , John B. and the rest of the cast know how to run your life better than you do? If you answer with "no,, it's those other people that I worry about and need to be told what to do."
Huh?

Yes, with the caveat that they show both basic competence with the weapon and an understanding of laws governing self-defense. Not too much to ask of someone who feels they need a potentially lethal weapon, no?

No right is axiomatic. All rights have to be balanced against each other.

Even if controlling guns were to reduce crime in the abstract, that is not in and of itself a justification to take away a right.

However, the right to own something that is designed to kill has to be regulated to some degree. And no one disputes this score: Virtually no one argues that the average citizen should be allowed to own a nuclear weapon or a tank. The debate is over something that the average person should reasonably be able to own.

Guns are like cars: Your ownership of them impacts my safety. For this reason, I believe guns should be licensed and regulated, but not banned. The costs to liberty are far too extreme for the benefits for society and the right to safety.

But what is utterly crucial is that the existence of private gun ownership is not used as a replacement for police. Privatizing security is wrong.